ArticleJournal of hand therapy : official journal of the American Society of Hand Therapists
Patterns of research utilization among Certified Hand Therapists.
Article in Journal of hand therapy : official journal of the American Society of Hand Therapists. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Research utilization process model: A cyclical, spiral, and developmental process to provide conclusive research knowledge in health professions education.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
designMixed methods, cross-sectional.
introductionNearly 30% of Certified Hand Therapists rarely or never use research findings when treating carpal tunnel syndrome. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: To identify groups of CHTs with common research utilization patterns.
methodsNational randomized mail survey of 600 CHTs (n = 308, RR = 55%). Latent class and thematic analysis of eight questions assessing research use and beliefs.
resultsFour groups of CHT research users were identified: Analytic (n = 135, 45%); Skeptic (n = 65, 22%); Pragmatic (n = 53, 18%); and Traditional (n = 46, 15%). Highest research use was reported among Analytics and Pragmatics although Skeptics willingly relied on research evidence when it contradicted other sources of knowledge. Age, not experience or population density, was a significant covariate of group membership.
conclusionsEmpowering CHTs to use research findings by increased understanding of their group membership, and understanding others' groups, may increase progress toward evidence-based practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.